audio_transcribe

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the model (Qwen3-ASR) and formats, but does not mention side effects, requirements, or return behavior. For a transcription tool, it's likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a short intro plus a well-formatted args list. Every sentence adds value (formats, model, parameter meanings) with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers core aspects like formats and model. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but overall it is adequate for a transcription tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all four parameters with meaningful explanations, including allowed values for language (auto|zh|en|ja|ko) and output_format (json|txt). This compensates well for the schema's minimal parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states '音频转写' (audio transcription) with a specific verb and resource, and lists supported formats (wav/mp3/m4a/flac). It is unambiguous and obviously distinct from the sibling vision/GUI tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by specifying supported audio formats and the transcription context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the siblings are clearly different, making the intended use clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.